Tag: Jew-Hatred

Here is an example of classic Muslim Jew-Hatred. This time it emanates from a Daily newspaper in Egypt – Egyptian government daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’.

MEMRI’s English translated version simply drools with Jew-Hatred. The theme of lies and derision is based on the long debunked as fictional forgery is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Egyptian government dailyuse The Protocols as a racist Antisemitic reason that President Trump intends to the move the U.S. Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to the city that Israel calls its Capital – Jerusalem.

On December 11, 2017, the Egyptian government daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ published an article by Hashem Al-Fakharani titled “From the ‘[Arab] Spring Plots’ to ‘the Buying of the White House’ – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Are Realizing Their Goals after 100 Years …” In this article, Al-Fakharani claimed that President Donald Trump’s announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is the result of pressure by the Jewish lobby, and is another phase in the implementation of the Jewish-Zionist plot to take over the world set out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He wrote that, as part of the implementation of this plot, the Jews also extorted the Balfour Declaration from Britain and concocted schemes to destroy Arab countries and ignited the flame of “The Arab Spring” within them, which undermined their stability.

The article in the Egyptian daily; the image shows President Trump next to the cover of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, Egypt, December 11, 2017)

“Through diligent activity, in accordance with its dubious agenda, the occupation state has cautiously spun its web. For many decades, Israel replaced [its] sponsors in the region in order to [create] chaos-inducing scenarios. First, it extorted the Balfour Declaration from Britain during the Colonial period, then it replaced [the British sponsorship] with the patronage of the U.S., and finally it led [the U.S. to] the obscene announcement made by President Donald Trump, in which he declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to his decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to the occupied city [Jerusalem].

“The unilateral American recognition [of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital], which ignored the warnings of the international community about its implications, was not sudden. Rather, it was part of the Zionist plot that the Jews of Europe started to weave, like a spider’s web, in the year 1901, by means of the document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which includes 24 protocols. [These protocols comprise a plan] to take over the world by appointing [the Jews’] henchmen to sensitive positions among decision-makers, and by establishing lobby groups – [collectively] known as the Zionist lobby – that tyrannically control the fates of the nations.

“The vile Protocols were written by an agent for the political secret police in Russia, the Russian Matvei Golovinski. He received the inspiration to write them from the book Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by the [French] author Maurice Joly…

“The rabbinic council of the Jews developed the protocols with the goal of destroying the Christian hegemony in the world. Thus, after the [First Zionist] Congress – which took place in Basel, Switzerland, and was organized in 1897 by Theodor Herzl, the leader of the Zionist movement – the group of European rabbis amended the Protocols with the objective of establishing a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

“Following the Balfour Declaration, in which Palestine was given by those who did not own it [i.e. the British] to those who had no right to it [i.e. the Jews], schemes were concocted to destroy the peoples and armies that opposed the establishment of a state for the Jews in Palestine, and specifically the Arab countries that opposed the establishment of this state.

“An examination of the Seventh Protocol in The Protocols [of the Elders of Zion] reveals that it stresses the need to wear down every country that stands in the way of those plans, by creating internal crises that lead to wars, and by causing world wars. In order to actualize these protocols, Israel worked diligently to ignite the flames of the so-called Arab Spring, which undermined the [Arab] peoples in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya. By means of this [Seventh] Protocol, Israel succeeded in weakening the capabilities of these countries’ armies, while the Egyptian army managed to stand firm against this diabolical plot.

“Following the revolution that broke out in March 2011, Syria, which is one of the countries in conflict with Israel, was worn down by the war between the Syrian army and terror organizations such as ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. The same applies to Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. After about seven years of “Arab Spring” – which drove out [the population of] Syria, destroyed Libya, and wiped out Yemen – and more than 100 years after [publication of] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Zionist lobby put pressure on the American president to make the perverted decision [about Jerusalem], which has been defined as Balfour Declaration II.”

Exploring the Middle East and South Asia through their media, MEMRI bridges the language gap between the West and the Middle East and South Asia, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu-Pashtu, Dari, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)3 organization. MEMRI’s main office is located in Washington, DC, with branch offices in various world capitals. MEMRI research is translated into English, French, Polish, Japanese, Spanish and Hebrew.

MAIN PROJECTS & ARCHIVES

MEMRI allows easy access to its archives of over 6,000 reports from its Special Dispatch series, Inquiry & Analysis series, and MEMRI TV Project, on all subjects and countries, including nearly 16,000 minutes of translated material from the MEMRI TV Project. There are also over 30,000 individual blog entries available in the archives, as MEMRI adds over 10,000 entries annually to its blogs. The MEMRI TV Project maintains the world’s largest archives of translated clips from the Arab and …READ THE REST

“Go away from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;

3 And I will bless (do good for, benefit) those who bless you,
And I will curse [that is, subject to My wrath and judgment] the one who curses (despises, dishonors, has contempt for) you.
And in you all the families (nations) of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12: 1, 3 AMP)

I chastised José Feliciano for his delusional anti-American photo:

The discussion became verbally heated. José then posted a long list of Jew-hating lies about what Jews did in which most cases the actual perpetrators were Muslims. I was about to respond when old José blocked me. Here is a truncated version that I gleaned from the email notification:

A Brief history of Mossad Black Ops and False Flags, Mossad: a shell organization for Jewish/Israeli terrorism all over the world. False Flags: Committing an atrocious act, and blaming another party or nation for it. The point is to turn public opinion against an entity, and have someone else fight your battles for you.

Lusitania Churchill, who was 1/2 Jewish, leaked intelligence to Germany that Lusitania carried munitions, and then it was sent it in a U-boat infested area. The ship was…

Here is what I was about to respond with until José blocked me:

José, I don’t have time to go through the salacious lies about Jews here (but I will address them in a future blog post). But just as a point of reference for you and your fellow Jew-haters here are some links that discuss the blood libel lies that Antisemitic love to delusionally point their fingers at Jews:

José Feliciano is a Hispanic name typically associated with Catholicism. José is no Catholic because I was blocked I recall one of his retorts as something similar “God bless Hezbollah.” Hezbollah is a Jew-hating Islamic terrorist organization that nearly controls Lebanon and is a Shi’ite terrorist client of the crazy Shi’ite Muslims running Iran. Obviously, I can presume José Feliciano is a pseudonym for a radical believing Shi’ite.

I wish I had copied José’s Antisemitic tirade of lying accusations so I could rebut them with the truth. Oh well, c’est la vie.

This is what I’m going to do. I will address some Antisemitic blood libel lying Conspiracy Theories and put down a, “What really happened,” brief scenario. Beginning with what I can figure out of the cropped lie from my email notice.

Intelligence Agencies and National Interests

Intelligence agencies of nations with military/political power are very capable of acts that normal-citizens in society would find abhorrent. Nations off the top of my mind but probably not limited to are the USA, Russia (including 20th century versions of the USSR), China, UK, France, various Muslim nations, Germany AND even though a diminutive nation compared to any nation (powerful or not) – Israel. Those intelligence agencies typical motive for espionage is to act for the National Interest of their home nation. In this day and age, world domination is rarely ever viewed as a National Interest for any nation. Rather, National Interests typically surround a nation’s status in global economics and National Security from another nation’s National Interests which may do harm to the home nation. Today the clash of National Interests is the tinder box for war more than the useless concept of world domination.

In the USA a Capitalist economy and the personal Liberty of individuals to pursue happiness is the prime mover of American politics as viewed by voters. The current inner struggle among voters is the dichotomy of visions of traditional American values or a further transformation into a Social Democratic polity whence Liberty is defined by the State more than natural unalienable Rights. U.S. National Interests tend to sway back and forth depending on voter mandates during elections.

The National Interests of most European nations is a Social Democratic polity influenced highly by Multiculturalism.

The National Interests of Russia center around regional hegemony as a buffer from invaders.

The National Interests of China is also regional hegemony but more in the nature of securing economic power bolstered with the bully pulpit of an increasing military strength.

The Muslim nations’ National Interests primarily center around a medieval solidification of Islamic culture followed closely tribal power structures within the primarily European carved out national borders. In the case of solidifying Islamic Culture, itty bitty Israel has become a cultural slap in the face of the teaching that once conquered by Islam, then the land must always be Islam. It doesn’t help Israel that Judaism is eternally vilified in Islam’s revered writings – Quran, Hadith and Sira.

Tiny Israel’s National Interests center around securing their Biblical National Homeland and protecting its borders from Muslims believing Jews are the heritage of apes and pigs. Sometimes Israeli National Interests clash with Western Nations’ National Interest desiring to placate oil rich Muslim nations which too leads to cooperation with Muslim Antisemitism. It is in those cases that a sophisticated Israeli Intelligence agency (most noticeably Mossad) intrude in both the Muslim dominated world and Western Intelligence agencies which may include the USA when it shows sympathy to Jew-hating entities such as the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the umbrella of Islamic terrorist organizations that have the explicit goal of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

911 Executed by Jews

While there is no one theory uniting them [i.e. Truthers], it can generally be said they believe the U.S. government and/or the Jews and/or anyone other than unhinged terrorists orchestrated the events of 9/11 in order to further their own dark and secretive agenda.

…

Israel’s spy agency knew about the attacks, and got 4,000 Jews out of there

The blame-the-Jews theory is very popular in the Middle East. In a 2008 poll conducted in Egypt, as many as 43 percent of Egyptians thought Israel was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks. Among the most persistent post-9/11 rumors was that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work that September morning at the World Trade Center because Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, warned them against it.

Although an exact tally doesn’t exist, the consensus is that anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the victims of the 9/11 attacks – up to 450 people – were Jewish religiously or had Judaism as their primary cultural affiliation. The U.S. Census has generally put the percentage of Americans who are Jewish at a maximum of 2 percent in recent years. It would be nonsensical of the Jews to leave hundreds behind as martyrs to cover their trail. Even if they had, it’s not as if Israel has been made any “safer” by 9/11. – READ ENTIRETY (9/11 conspiracy theories won’t stop; By JOSHUA NORMAN; CBS News; 9/11/11)

Blame CIA and Mossad

A former President of Italy gives conspiracy theories fuel when he assets that all of the Italian centre-left knows that the Central Intelligence and Mossad were behind the attacks, making Muslim terrorists as the fall guys. This allows the US to throw its full weight behind Israel. In addition, a former head of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency asserts that the ISI had prior knowledge of the attacks, knowing that the CIA was acting with Israeli operatives to plan and mount the attacks. And the attacks were a perfect opportunity for the forces of Zionism to take control of world affairs in retribution. – READ ENTIRETY (10 top 9/11 conspiracy theories; By Mick O’Reilly; Gulf News; 5/2/16 14:00)

Actual 911 Truth

WORLD TRADE CENTER

On September 11, 2001, at 8:45 a.m. on a clear Tuesday morning, an American Airlines Boeing 767 loaded with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

…

OSAMA BIN LADEN

The attackers were Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations. Reportedly financed by the al-Qaeda terrorist organization of Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, they were allegedly acting in retaliation for America’s support of Israel, its involvement in the Persian Gulf War and its continued military presence in the Middle East.

Some of the terrorists had lived in the United States for more than a year and had taken flying lessons at American commercial flight schools. Others had slipped into the country in the months before September 11 and acted as the “muscle” in the operation.

The 19 terrorists easily smuggled box-cutters and knives through security at three East Coast airports and boarded four early-morning flights bound for California, chosen because the planes were loaded with fuel for the long transcontinental journey. Soon after takeoff, the terrorists commandeered the four planes and took the controls, transforming ordinary passenger jets into guided missiles.

…

TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE

Less than 15 minutes after the terrorists struck the nerve center of the U.S. military, the horror in New York took a catastrophic turn when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed in a massive cloud of dust and smoke.

The structural steel of the skyscraper, built to withstand winds in excess of 200 miles per hour and a large conventional fire, could not withstand the tremendous heat generated by the burning jet fuel.

At 10:30 a.m., the north building of the twin towers collapsed. Only six people in the World Trade Center towers at the time of their collapse survived. Almost 10,000 others were treated for injuries, many severe. – READ ENTIRETY (9/11 ATTACKS; History.com)

Steel Beams

…

One of the most-cited and well-publicized pieces of evidence offered by this group is the claim that jet fuel does not burn at high enough temperatures to melt the steel beams. By this logic, explosives or some other form of fuel must have been used to bring the buildings down.

While jet fuel, which burns at around 800 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, may not reach the 2,750-degree melting point of steel, it is only about half as strong at 1,100 degrees, according to a comprehensive report compiled by Popular Mechanics in 2005. For the towers to collapse, the steel would not have needed to turn into a puddle of molten metal, it would only have had to bend enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building. –READ ENTIRETY (5 Times Scientists Tackled Conspiracy Theories, and Won; By Nathaniel Scharping; Discover Magazine; 8/16/16 1:20 pm)

The Jews are Responsible for Sinking Sea-Liner Lusitania 1915

The U.S. and UK pointed fingers that a German U-Boat (submarine) sank the civilian sea-liner leaving New York City bound for Britain as a part of its WWI blockade. For sure this is at least a partial truth. A U-Boat shot a torpedo to sink the Lusitania. It is the “WHY” that history is having difficulty with:

Lusitania fell victim to torpedo attack relatively early in the First World War, before tactics for evading submarines were properly implemented or understood. The contemporary investigations in both the United Kingdom and the United States into the precise causes of the ship’s loss were obstructed by the needs of wartime secrecy and a propaganda campaign to ensure all blame fell upon Germany. Argument over whether the ship was a legitimate military target raged back and forth throughout the war as both sides made misleading claims about the ship. At the time she was sunk, she was carrying over 4 million rounds of small-arms ammunition (.303 caliber), almost 5,000 shrapnel shell casings (for a total of some 50 tons), and 3,240 brass percussion fuses, in addition to 1,266 passengers and a crew of 696.[2][3] Several attempts have been made over the years since the sinking to dive to the wreck seeking information about precisely how the ship sank, and argument continues to the present day.

The general Conspiracy theory that has at least a probability of truth is that the Lusitania was that Germany was tricked by the UK or the USA (10 Conspiracy Theories That Sound Great, But PROBABLY Aren’t True!: 9 – The Lusitania was purposely sunk to draw the United States into World War I; Me Time For The Mind) to sink the Lusitania so American voters would abandon the long held Isolationist policy to foreign entanglements and the USA enter on the side of the Allies in WWI. The less credible Conspiracy Theory and frankly, quite absurd by lacking logic for the reality of resources, the Jews tricked the German Empire to sink the Lusitania for the U.S. to help secure a Jewish Homeland.

The credible Conspiracy website never mention any Jewish involvement with the Lusitania. However, there are plenty of Jew-hating websites of the White Supremacist or the Islamic nature spewing their fiction hate:

Steemit Example of Antisemitism

We are coming up to the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Lusitania, just off the Irish coast, on May 7th 1915.

We are also speeding towards the end of those liberties and freedoms which were won at such cost by our forebears, and given up so easily, by us, to the ‘Jew’ World Order.

Like every other ‘reason’ given before or since, for the occupied U.S.A government to ignore its own Constitution, and international law, and engage in official or unofficial war with nations that had never posed any threat to it, the sinking of the Lusitania was a ‘false flag’.

… the Lusitania was sunk by strategically positioned charges exploded at a discrete, observed, and documented interval after the German torpedoes had hit the Lusitania. We’ll consider the details of this particular false flag in a moment.

…

The Lusitania was a ‘success’ from the point of view of its planners. … the decision to go to war with Germany had been decided long in advance by the ‘Jewish’ Banksters in the U.S.A.

The false flag was just the last act in a chain of decisions and manipulations intended to produce the desired outcome.

…

The notion that America was forced to ensure ‘freedom of the seas’ after Germany began its campaign of submarine warfare was, and has always been, heavily pushed by the full spectrum propaganda machine of the Zionist ‘Jews’.

…

These forms of mass media were dominated and owned by the Jewish bankers who had made heavy investments in the European war. They had bought and sold bonds for the British government, which would have become worthless should Britain lose the war. These bankers would lose vast amounts of money should Germany win this war. Britain and France would have a terrible time trying to repay their huge war loans to the Banksters in the U.S and Europe.

…

Always and everywhere ‘Jews’ provoke fights, and then when their opponents fight back, they scream, in all the world’s media, that they are being ‘attacked’.

[Blog Editor: Now check out this blatant deceitful sanctification for both World Wars:]

In all cases in history it has been the Germans that were the most humane, and the Germans who always tried to respect international law and decency. Only to be demonized by the ‘Jewish’ propaganda machine, and thus demonized in all the official ‘histories’ of WWII, not to mention the mass media, and Hollywood, both of which have always been controlled and dominated by ‘Jews’.

…

Enjoy your ‘Jew’ World Order.

2800 ‘Goy’ slaves for every one of the 144,000 ‘Jewish’ masters.

Remember that ‘God’ made all the other non-Jews, the ‘Goys’, who are NOT human, in the FORM of humans, merely to be of better service to the ‘Jews’ as sex slaves, workers, and pets.

… This ENTIRE post on Steemit spews Jew-Hatred with proven lies. In fact, this post reminds me a lot of the José Feliciano Jew-Hate lies that he blocked me from responding (100 years after that ‘false flag’ called ‘The Lusitania’, we have learned nothing, and are being lead to war once more; By [Muslim sounding pseudonym[troonatnoor; Steemit; “last year” being 2017)

It is the conspiracy theory perhaps most beloved by antisemitic anoraks the world over. First peddled in the mid 19th century, it’s now nearly 200 years and the myth that the Rothschild family – having plotted and profited from wars, caused the Holocaust and arranged the assassination of political opponents – secretly control the global economy is still going strong.

…

The Rothschilds have long been a favourite target of fascists. The Nazis made a 1940 movie about them, while American white supremacists and antisemites such as the Liberty Lobby have obsessed over their supposed control of the Federal Reserve Bank.

…

The original and most powerful Rothschild conspiracy theory contains many of the core elements of its later variations. The subject of the 1940 Goebbels production Die Rothschilds Aktien auf Waterloo, it dates back to 1846 and was published in a pamphlet written under the pseudonym Satan. It focuses on Nathan Rothschild, founder of the London branch of the bank and son of the dynasty’s creator, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

As Brian Cathcart, professor of journalism at Kingston University and author of News From Waterloo: The Race To Tell Britain of Wellington’s Victory, has recounted, “Satan” (the cover adopted by a French left-wing antisemite Georges Dairnvaell), alleged that Nathan was on the battlefield in June 1815 to witness the French defeat. Hastily returning to Britain before the news broke back home, he was able to use his knowledge to make 20 million francs on the stock exchange. In Dairnvaell’s telling, Cathcart writes, the Rothschilds’ “vast fortune was built upon the bloodshed of the battle of Waterloo”.

…

Over time, the edifice upon which Dairnvaell constructed his story was demolished. Nathan was not at Waterloo. The newspaper which allegedly reported the story of his share spending spree turned out to contain no such item. And there was, in fact, not even a huge collapse in share prices from which he could have profited.

…

Perhaps the most pernicious and offensive of the Rothschild conspiracy theories, however, is that the family somehow engineered the second world war and the Holocaust in order to generate the sympathy necessary to establish the state of Israel. But, as Dunning notes, the “only seed of truth” to the claim that the Rothschilds “funded the Holocaust” is that the Nazis seized the Austrian Rothschilds’ assets, effectively holding the head of the family, Baron Louis, prisoner for several months as they stole his money. But for those wishing to stir the pot of antisemitism, the facts are never allowed to get in the way of a good story. – READ ENTIRETY (The Rothschilds, the banks and antisemitism – the truth and the myths; By Robert Philpot; The Jewish Chronicle; 12/11/17)

Sandy Hook Massacre Antisemitic Idiocy

Iran’s Press TV scored an international scoop Tuesday. It turns out, it reports, the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six of their teachers and administrators was not the work of a troubled loner. Rather, it was Israeli death squads exacting vengeance over a recent United Nations General Assembly vote granting Palestine nonmember observer status.

…

The claim came from Michael Harris, who was one of three panelists in a discussion about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. While the other panelists focused on a culture of violence in America, or the issue of gun laws, Harris unleashed a torrent of Jew hatred. – READ ENTIRETY (Iran TV Blames Israel for Sandy Hook; By Steve Emerson; Newsmax; 12/21/12 10:32 AM)

On December 14, 2012, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred. The perpetrator, Adam Lanza, fatally shot his mother before murdering 20 students and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and later committing suicide.[1]

The Washington Post reported that claims broadcast on Press TV contain a large number of “obvious logical fallacies” typical of Iranian propaganda, which “has a well-earned reputation for incendiary anti-Israel stories and for wild conspiracy theories.”[6]The Atlantic wrote that the story “obviously plays on the worst fears of those who believe in secret Jewish cabals that run the world, but it’s a pretty pathetic attempt at slander, even for Iran.”[5]– I just focused on the Antisemitic angle, there are a half-dozen or so other Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories; Wikipedia; page last updated 1/31/18 19:07)

I’ve just looked at two of the idiotic accusations against Jews that absolutely make no sense. Here’s the granddaddy of Jewish Conspiracy theories created in France but most widely distributed in Czarist Russia that the Jews sole goal is world domination. I am writing about the most debunked document in modern history – The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

Five years after 9/11, lingering conspiracy theories hold that Jews planned the attacks. The charges’ staying power, though, is nothing compared to that of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The century-old text has been discredited many times over its hundred-plus-year history. Yet even today the tale finds willing believers among those who oppose Zionism—the idea that Jews should have a homeland in Palestine, an idea that was fulfilled in the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

…

The Protocols tell the tale of a secret plot in which a shadowy and powerful cabal of Jewish leaders and Freemasons sets out to dominate the world. The text purports to be the minutes of secret meetings held in Switzerland at the time of the First Zionist Congress in 1897.

The book outlines the group’s endeavors to conquer the globe by manipulating the media and the global economy, promoting religious conflicts, and supporting socialism.

A Web search reveals thousands of Web sites with Protocols-related content. Most refute the texts and offer ample evidence of their fraudulent nature. But plenty of others exist to propagate the myth.

…

Hoax Exposed

…

In 1921 the Times of London published convincing proof that The Protocols were largely plagiarized from books published decades earlier—primarily The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by Maurice Joly (1864) and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (1868).

In subsequent years similar exposés appeared in Germany and the United States. A U.S. Senate committee declared that The Protocols were bogus. And in 1993 they were officially declared fraudulent by a court in the country of their origin—Russia.

1864
French political satirist Maurice Joly writes TheDialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Joly’s book never mentions Jews, but much of the Protocols would be fabricated based on ideas contained in it.

1897–1899
Although the origin of the Protocols is still a matter of debate, it was most likely fabricated under the direction of Pyotr Rachovsky, chief of the foreign branch of the Russian secret police (Okhrana) in Paris.

1903
An abbreviated version of the Protocols is published in a St. Petersburg, Russia, newspaper, Znamya (The Banner).

1905
Russian mystic Sergei Nilus includes the Protocols as an appendix to his book, The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth. By 1917, Nilus publishes four editions of the Protocols in Russia.

1920
The first non-Russian language edition of the Protocols is issued in Germany.

1920
The Protocols is published in Poland, France, England, and the United States. These editions blame the Russian Revolution on Jewish conspirators and warn of Bolshevism spreading to the West.

1920
Lucien Wolf, a British journalist and diplomat, exposes the Protocols as a fraudulent plagiarism in The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

1920
Automaker Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent publishes The International Jew, an Americanized version of the Protocols. The International Jew is translated into more than one dozen languages.

August 16–18, 1921
Journalist Phillip Graves exposes the Protocols as a plagiarism in series of articles in London Times.

1921New York Herald reporter Herman Bernstein publishes The History of a Lie: The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion,the first exposure of the Protocols as a fraud for an American audience.

…

1924
Benjamin Segel, a German-Jewish journalist, exposes the Protocols as a forgery in his Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion, kritisch beleuchtet (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Critically Illuminated).

…

1927
Henry Ford issues a public apology for publishing the Protocols, which he admits are “gross forgeries.” Ford directs that remaining copies of The International Jew be burned, and he orders overseas publishers to cease publishing the book. Ford’s directives to foreign publishers are ignored.

…

1964
The US Senate Judiciary Committee issues a report titled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Fabricated “Historic” Document. The committee concludes: “The subcommittee believes that the peddlers of the Protocols are peddlers of un-American prejudice who spread hate and dissension among the American people.”

…

1988
Article 32 of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) reads: “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

1993
The Protocols is declared a fraud in a Moscow trial of Pamyat, an ultra-nationalist Russian organization that published the Protocols in 1992.

…

2002
The US Senate passes a resolution urging the government of Egypt and other Arab states not to allow government-controlled television to broadcast any program that lends legitimacy to the Protocols.

2005
A edition of the Protocols published in Mexico City suggests that the Holocaust was orchestrated by the Elders of Zion in exchange for the founding of the State of Israel.

2005
An edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information, claims that the Elders of Zion coordinated the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

2007
A typical Internet search for the Protocols yields several hundred thousand sites.

Evidently the last time the timeline was updated was in 2007. As the 2007 point suggests, an Internet search will display hundreds of thousands results. It will boggle your mind how many of those search results lead you to Jew-hatred websites. Hatred of Jews is becoming so virulent again, that even after proven debunking of the validity of The Protocols, the document is the center piece of spreading Antisemitism globally.

I just realized exposing Antisemites could turn into a book. If you’ve made this far, you are aware that I am erudite enough to write that book. If you are that erudite writer and have the time for research, PLEASE be the person that exposes the likes of Jose Feliciano and other Jew-Hating morons.

12 1Now [in Haran] the Lord had said to Abram,

“Go away from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;

3 And I will bless (do good for, benefit) those who bless you,
And I will curse [that is, subject to My wrath and judgment] the one who curses (despises, dishonors, has contempt for) you.
And in you all the families (nations) of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12: 1, 3 AMP)

It has always been my opinion that a Two-State Solution would NEVER be a harbinger for peace between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. A Palestinian State would merely be a launching ground for Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. The result would be Israeli military incursions to punish an independent Palestine for allowing the terrorist launching pads. Or an independent Palestine might have the hutzpah claim the terrorism is military incursions for whatever fake/false reason given.

The only raison d’être for a Palestinian State existence would be to end Israel’s existence and to kill Jews. Because of Muslim animus against Israel, a One-State Solution is the best solution.

The best One-State Solution is to find a way to move Jew-hating Muslims out of any area that is a part of ancient Jewish heritage.

Dr. Martin Sherman has written a two-part essay touching on the logistics and feasibility of an ethical fashion to aid Jew-hating Muslims to emigrate to another Arab-Muslim nation. I found out about Dr. Sherman’s from the Facebook Group “No Palestinian State!” (If you are a Pro-Israel kind of person you should go there and request to be a member and add to the discussion.)

The title is “INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs”. You can read the 6/2/17 Part One HERE. Part Two is cross posted below.

Sequel to the dispelling of doubts regarding the feasibility – and morality – of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -attributed to Winston Churchill

Readers will recall that last week I began a two part response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP), which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

To recap briefly

In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their GDP.

I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous live elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article, describing how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs. Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction, ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.

Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s economy. Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an inconceivable prospect.

Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs, we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.

FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?

One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because of threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national aspirations.

In contending with this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b) wide-spread and pervasive.

Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants.

If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case, several points need to be made:

– If this objection to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats), but that they can sustain such ability over time.

– In this regard, it should be kept in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab control.

Inhibiting internecine intimidation

The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point. All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly preclude their implementation. Indeed, they are even endorsed by some pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.

Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of Israeli forces in their stead, will greatly curtail (although not entirely eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing themselves of the funds.

In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.

Moreover, the international community should be called upon to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.

Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?

Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of Palestinian-Arab society.

After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their kin-folk.

Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP and against the establishment of a Palestinian state. After all, two unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.

As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an alternative outcome.

In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine their future.

FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered unethical “ethnic cleansing”?

I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.

I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).

Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?

(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

FAQ 6: What about those who remain?

This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.

The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say, only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish character of the country.

However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the pre-1967 lines into Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve any cataclysmic irreversible measures.

At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100 years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel, port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.

Accordingly, should it be found that the initial proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing, and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.

Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.

FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to induce Jewish emigration?

In addressing this question several points should be borne in mind:

The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government. After all, the HP is intended as a measure to: (a) Ensure – not undermine – the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli government.

Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of funds. (b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance large scale Jewish emigration; (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories; (d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.
Urgent Zionist imperative.

The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization inherent in other proffered alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is both urgent and feasible.

_________________

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

The writer served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of theIsraelInstitute for Strategic Studies(www.strategicisrael.org).

Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization attempting to schmooze Western support with duplicitous words that actually change nothing about Israel and Jews in general. Hamas published a revised version of their charter with deceptive moderated language.

At a news conference held in Qatar, Hamas presented its new manifesto in a clear attempt to make itself more palatable to a Western audience as well as so-called moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

“The new document may seem more moderate, but in reality nothing has changed. While the document accepts the 1967 borders as a “national consensus formula,” and you are sure to see breathless praise for this “change,” Hamas still calls for the “full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which is poetic code for “the destruction of Israel.”

On Jerusalem it says, “Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished.” Hamas still rejects not only the admittedly failed Oslo Accords, but also the recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence. Indeed it calls “armed resistance” the “strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.”

The new document allows Hamas to claim moderation and to seek out new allies alienated by the religious struggle depicted in its original charter. But make no mistake: The new charter does not mean that Hamas will make any change in either its strategy, tactics, or its demands.

It has “moderated” its position, but it is not moderate. It must continue to be fought against and to be rejected, just as it rejects the right of Israel to live in peace and security.

Click here to sign our petition and call on the media to stop whitewashing Hamas.

Some media, however, appear to have gone kumbaya for Hamas, including the claim that Hamas is no longer calling for Israel’s destruction.

HonestReporting monitors the news for bias, inaccuracy, or other breach of journalistic standards in coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also facilitates accurate reporting for foreign journalists covering the region. HonestReporting is not aligned with any government or political party or movement.

HonestReporting believes that a fully informed public is essential to progress and understanding in conflict resolution. It is not enough to correct inaccurate reporting and expose breaches of journalistic ethics. HonestReporting, through its MediaCentral project, provides support services for journalists based in or visiting Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the region to insure the free flow of information.

HonestReporting’s work serves the public interest by fighting misinformation, such as computer manipulations of images that give people a false impression of the conflict. At the same time, it provides agenda-free services to reporters, including translation services and access to news makers to enable them to provide a fuller picture of the situation. Honestreporting has over 140,000 subscribers and its MediaCentral project handles over 1,000 inquiries from journalists each year.

I just an ACT for America email update on Rollins College suspending a student for openly disagree with a Muslim Prof who was indoctrinating the class about the Crucifixion of Cross saying it was a hoax.

The student – Marshall Polston. The Professor – Areej Zufari.

After Polston publicly complained about his suspension, Counterjihad investigators began to Areej Zufari’s life. The discovery was that she was a Jew-hating radical Muslim working at Rollins College in Florida. Zufari was a mistress to a married Syrian whose name is Maher Ghawji:

8. Maher Ghawji has admitted to his wife of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent political movement whose members are sworn to “defend Islam” with their “blood.” He accepted this status with a group of friends, during a trip they had made to Cairo, Egypt (Exhibit 1). He left Syria around 1982, the year a government-led massacre took place in the town of Hama – a Brotherhood stronghold – which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 to 40,000 people (Exhibit 2). Following the massacre, members of the Brotherhood fled Syria, some leaving for the U.S. or Europe, some joining up with Osama bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan (Exhibit 3).

9. During his court deposition, on June 4, 2004, Maher Ghawji admitted to the court and to his wife of being a Wahhabi, an adherent to a fanatical religious form of Islam … READ THE REST (Orlando’s Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari — Profile of a ‘Radical Islamic Supremacist’; By Dr. Rich Swier; Website – Dr. Rich Swier; 3/28/17)

Knowing about Zufari’s boyfriend is quite significant; however, if one believes there is Radical Islam inherent in Zufari merely because she is married to a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi operative, this will change your mind:

Zufari served as the spokesperson and Director of Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF) from 2001 to at least 2004, according to the author bio from her 2012 book “Beyond the Headlines” and press communications from the organization. ISCF’s main mosque, Masjid al-Rahman, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was classified by federal prosecutors as both an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case and as an entity that is or was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In this case, the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals were identified as “establish[ing] a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas,” and “eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.” Former FBI special agent Robert Stauffer stated that NAIT’s role in the Muslim Brotherhood is that of a nonprofit financial holding company, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Security policy expert Alex Alexiev reportsin the National Review that NAIT is “the proprietor of hundreds of radical mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S., including some that have been closed down by the government as criminal enterprises.” According to the Hudson Institute, NAIT is the title owner of at least 25% of all Islamic facilities in the United States with some estimates reaching up to 79%. ISCF has not responded to multiple calls and emails asking if Zufari still holds a position with the organization.

In recent years ISCF has received notable publicity for terrorism fundraising activities. In 2009, ISCF sponsored and held an event at Masjid al-Rahman that raised at least $55,000 for George Galloway’s Viva Palestina, which has been criticized as being a financial conduit for the terrorist organization Hamas. Indeed, in 2009 Galloway held a public press conference where he handed a bag of cash over to Hamas leadership.

…

While its website claims that the organization is for peaceful practitioners of Islam, earlier this year Imam Musri welcomed Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi, a radical Muslim cleric who openly calls for the death of Jews and gays, according to Heritage Florida Jewish News.

In recent years Rollins College appears to have forged deep connections with ISCF and the two have engaged in affiliated projects dating as far back as 1998. Rollins has collaborated on several events with the ISCF, including one as late as September of 2016, according to the ISCF’s Twitter page.

… Zufari was caught up in the middle of a divorce case between Rosine Ghawji and her husband, Maher Ghawji, a Syrian-born endocrinologist, whom Rosine has exposed as a supporter of and donor to radical Islamic activities.

Proof of the affair, found in the affidavit of counter-terrorism expert Joe Kaufman, showed that Zufari had been planning a trip to a nudist resort with Maher Ghawji, a man who admitted in court to giving money to his brother, who ended up being a part of a terrorist-linked organization, according to page 32 of the court filing. Specifically, a …

Six years prior to their divorce, Rosine [Maher Ghawji’s ex-wife] began acting as an FBI informant leaking information about her ex-husband, who she claims revealed himself to her to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood early on in their relationship.

Email evidence uncovered in the court filing shows that the two were so deeply involved that Zufari had gone to Syria and visited with Ghawji’s family. This past Wednesday, Zufari’s sister confirmed in a comment on a Facebook post that at one point they were even engaged to be married, but claims “their relationship didn’t last for other reasons” after the court trial had ended.

According to point 20 of her lawsuit against Zufari, Rosine alleges that throughout the affair Zufari was aware of her ex-husband’s extremist beliefs, and was even complicit in the plan to radicalize Ghawji’s two children, Louis and Tarek “K.K.” Ghawji.

…

When asked to respond to the situation and Zufari’s ties to radical Islam, Rollins College spokeswoman Jo Marie Hebeler said the following in a statement:

“Rollins College is welcoming and respectful of all religious and cultural beliefs. As an institution of higher education, we value and encourage diversity of opinions and respectful discourse. In accordance with FERPA and our institutional policies, it is our responsibility to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all involved in this incident, students and faculty alike. The safety and fair treatment of all members of our campus community is of utmost concern.”

Ergo the Rollins College multicultural diversity policy means the college looks the other way when Islamic terrorist supporting apply for employment. YOU have to wonder if the college has other Islamic terrorist supporting staff under their employ?

Marshal Polston had his suspension lifted after only a week. AND Islamic terrorist supporting Areej Zufari has voluntarily resigned as a Professor at Rollins College.

And yet Rollins College insists Polston did not get suspended for arguing with Areej Zufari. Rather the college claims Polston was suspended for social media disrespect and vulgarity against college staff. The only proof of such disrespect and vulgarity is an email sent to Zufari complaining of receiving a failing grade for disagreeing with her facts. I found the email at WND:

We need to talk as soon as possible over phone or in your office because you have been extremely unfair to me and pursuit a ruthless program of hostility in your recent grading simply due to the fact that I disagree with you on your inherent bias and clandestine theological apologies. I’m actually a nice person but not when I’m viciously attacked. I’d be just as happy to go to the dean about this issue.

I’m emailing you about the first essay in your Rollins class. You recently failed me with a 52% despite the fact that I followed all the guidelines listed, covered all the topics and asked you directly about the problem areas. I specifically asked you about sources in person as a result of your request that the paper be an analysis and not research. Everything I wrote came from personal memory and research or first hand experience in my travels with the government, personal visits with friends, teaching experiences or philanthropic efforts in the Middle East.

Quite frankly the grade you assigned to me exposes your a true agenda which is to silence me in class. As I told you before I’m not interested in speaking anymore. But since you’ve decided to carry a blitzkrieg out against me, I may have to speak up in regards to your extreme bias and not necessarily to the class but to the dean. You’re one of the most incompetent professors I have ever seen in my entire life.

It’s very clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You may have a college degree but you belong in a reform school.

First you conflate the immaculate conception and virgin birth which are totally different. Then you state that middle eastern Jews were Sephardic when in fact they are mostly Mizrahi Sephardic Jews only emigrated from Spain to North Africa and Istanbul and we’re NEVER native.

I could go on and on and on. Everybody knows that you’re a failure as a Professor — Rest assured I’m not the only one!!! I have dozens of examples to pull from that I’ve noticed during the class.

I think it’s great to be a theological apologist but not in a secular setting — I don’t know whether this was just a mistake or not so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. In order to stop a textual embarrassment in the Quran from coming to light in class you proceeded to ignore the facts when I asked a pertinent question about Mohammed. He had an adopted son which divorced his wife so he could marry him and although you finally admitted it was twisted, it took until I looked up the verse that you believed me.

Your bias is blatantly evident in your misinformation about the historical Jesus and moreover manifested in the lack of discussion about Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis (with you taking the theological position that Moses wrote the first five books of the Torah). No one takes either position that you gave in the archaeological or secular biblical fields.

Also your brainwashing session about sharia law at the United States of Rollins ignores what the vast majority of people in countries like Egypt and Iraq really believe in regards to misogyny, homophobia or religious freedom.

I agree that sharia law can be reformed but in the context of the seventh century, let’s not jump to utopian conclusions about sharia law’s original implementation in society. I understand that you are much more liberal Muslim which is great but quite frankly it astonishes me your hypocrisy. On the one hand you report me to the dean for correcting you while you were indoctrinating students with false information. On the other hand a Muslim student in class cracks a joke about chopping someone’s body parts off and you do nothing. Yes I have witnesses – I’m not the only one who has a concern about your agenda and overt bias. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

It’s really cowardly of you to shut me down in the middle of class or lie to the dean but I should be careful when saying that because that would be insulting to cowards. There’s something seriously wrong and depraved about you when you think my intellectual conversation is more threatening than the despicable comments about decapitation made by the student in question! SICK! [Blog Editor’s bold text]

I hope we don’t have to escalate this issue and you’ll stop this crusade against me. I would really hate to get in contact with some national media personalities that I’m good friends with but I’m going to have to take it there or pursue legal options if you don’t stop your harassment toward me.

Hmm … I see an upset student over an unjust/undeserving failing grade AND NOTHING physically threatening, disrespectful or vulgar. Since Rollins College multicultural diversity policy does not preclude hiring Islamic terrorist supporters, it is not surprising the college uses an age old Islamic tenet in fabricating a suspension reason – Taqiyya (aka Lying).

The ACT for America is taking its share of credit for Areej Zufari resigning, but says nothing of Marshall Polston’s reinstatement. ACT uses the email as a fundraiser. Give or not, that’s up to you. ACT for America is a worthy cause if you have the extra cash.

Well, to make this post lengthier, I am cross posting ACT’s email followed by The Blaze’s update on Marshall Polston. Those are the two sources I initially read that chapped my hide about Rollins College’s idiotic multicultural diversity policy.

After being caught red handed indoctrinating students, and slandering one who stood up to her radical agenda, Marshall Polston, ACT for America came to the rescue.

Zufari was on the FBI terror watch list for connections to a co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing, and was an explicit anti-Semite.

ACT for America mobilized its grassroots army to bombard the college with tens of thousands of emails and calls demanding the reinstatement of Marshall Polston and the firing of the radical professors. We made life so difficult for her and the college, she resigned on her own.

Chalk up another victory for our grassroots machine, which continues to grow in both size and influence.

We want to thank you for standing by our side in this fight to identify, expose, and remove radical Islamic Professors from college campuses across the country.

At ACT for America, we don’t just talk about the threats facing our nation, we ACT to eradicate them.

Let this be a lesson that your phone calls matter. Your emails matter. Your voice matters, and together, we are going to make America a safer place to call home.

A Muslim professor at a small Florida college has resigned after a bitter dispute with a Christian student which included theological dust-ups, angry emails, a police report, a suspension for the student — and a reversal of the suspension — all of which made national headlines.

The professor, Areej Zufari, wanted 20-year-old sophomore Marshall Polston out of her Middle Eastern humanities class at Rollins College after doing battle with him for most of the spring semester. Polston accused her of saying Jesus’ crucifixion is a hoax and that his disciples didn’t believe he is God — but that wasn’t his only issue.

In an email to Zufari after receiving a failing grade on an essay, Polston wrote “you report me to the dean for correcting you while you were indoctrinating students with false information. On the other hand a Muslim student in class cracks a joke about chopping someone’s body parts off and you do nothing.”

The controversy spread beyond the private liberal arts school in Winter Park, which received thousands of angry messages about the professor.

The school’s President Grant Cornwell told the Orlando Sentinel that Zufari quit “because of the hateful threats and emails and phones messages she was getting. I think it’s a terrible injustice, but I do respect her decision.”

In addition, Cornwall told the paper that Polston’s suspension in late March — which was rescinded after a week — wasn’t over his theological dispute with Zufari but because of his “vulgar” and “mean-spirited” Facebook comments to another student. The president added to the Sentinel that since Polston’s posts didn’t constitute a specific threat, he was reinstated.

However, Polston’s reinstatement letter from Rollins College says his behavior was connected to more than just a single student, noting he had been “aggressive, disrespectful, and at times, vulgar in multiple verbal and electronic communications with faculty, staff and students.”

Cornwall’s revelation about Polston’s “vulgar” and “mean-spirited” Facebook comments was the the first time the school gave its reason for the suspension, the Sentinel reported, adding that the school wouldn’t comment earlier, citing student privacy laws.

But at the time, Cornwall did insist the school “never ever ever” would suspend a student simply for disagreeing with a professor.

Polston’s attorney Kenneth Lewis told the Sentinel the Facebook post was “nothing” and “a total joke” — and that the classroom dispute was the real reason for his client’s suspension.

Before Polston’s suspension, Zufari sought an injunction against him for “protection against stalking,” the paper said, citing court records — but she withdrew the injunction request last week.

Cornwell added to the Sentinel that school officials interviewed other students in Zufari’s class who disputed Polston’s allegations — and that the school decided his failing grade was appropriate after reviewing Polston’s essay.

“I was upset, understandably,” Polston told the Central Florida Post about his failing grade. “I’ve never gotten anything less than straight As, so I was really interested in figuring out how to possibly improve or at least understand the grade.”

In 2013, Rollins College kicked InterVarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because the student group required its leaders to be Christian and promote certain conservative beliefs, the Sentinel reported, which constituted a violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

In case you were unaware, Fatah is the terrorist organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) umbrella of Jew-hating Islamic terrorists. AND the PLO is the backbone of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – HERE & HERE. The PA is the so-called governing organization that four military/economic powers – Quartet (which includes the U.S. government) have demanded Israel commit national suicide to create a sovereign nation for the fake Palestinian people.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has presented a roughly 47-page report on how Fatah is supporting blatant terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel.

Yesterday, Palestinian Media Watchpresented its report Fatah Votes for Terror to the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East. Included as an appendix to that report is a new collection of examples which show that Fatah continues to blatantly incite and glorify terror in 2017.

Posted text: “My weapon has emerged”

Text on image: “From my wounds, my weapon has emerged.

Oh, our revolution, my weapon has emerged.

There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand.

Fatah promotes terror during times characterized by daily terror attacks as well as during relatively peaceful times. In Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3, PMW documents that Fatah actively glorified terrorism on its Facebook page throughout the terror wave of 2015-2016.

The image below, which Fatah posted to its official Facebook page and appears in Appendix 3, glorified the ongoing violence and promised more to come:

Posted text: “We march, we are not afraid of the fire and we do not fear death. With blood we will redeem the homeland and saturate its ground. The anniversary is approaching.” #The_51st_anniversary_of_the_beginning _of_Fatah’s_activity”

Text on image: “Half a century has passed and we have never abandoned our weapons”

The large number of examples documented in these appendices show that terror support is fundamental to Fatah’s ideology. This documentation is of paramount importance when examining whether the Palestinian Authority, with the Fatah Movement as its leading party, can be seen as a peace partner. Is Fatah leading the Palestinian people toward peace or toward continued terror?

Founded in 1996, Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli research institute that studies Palestinian society from a broad range of perspectives by monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW’s major focus is on the messages that the Palestinian leaders, from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, send to the population through the broad range of institutions and infrastructures they control.

PMW’s many reports and studies on Palestinian summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles, religious ideology, women and mothers, children’s music videos and the PA’s indoctrination of adults and children to seek Shahada (Martyrdom), have had significant impact on the way the world sees the Palestinians. PMW has presented its findings before members of US Congress and …READ THE REST

Andrew Bostom is one of my favorite Counterjihad authors. So when I discovered from the Counter Jihad Report that a Bostom speech was posted on his website a few days ago I was quite pleased to watch it. Below is the entire post from Bostom’s blog which includes the text of the speech.

Bostom talks of the failure of the Bush Administration’s concept of bringing Western democratic principles to overthrown dictatorships and hostile Muslim leadership. In hindsight, Bostom is correct to criticize this Bush Agenda; however, the concept was correct. History has shown that bringing democracy to repressive regimes (e.g. conquered Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII) was and is highly successful. Not only have the citizens flourished when despotism was removed but once repressive regimes have chosen a path of peaceful dialogue and trade with their conquerors. UNFORTUNATELY, the nation-building paradigm does not work in a culture under the domination of a millennia of Islamic cultural brainwashing.

Col. Douglas MacGregor is a respected military strategist, who was a heroic tank commander during the 1991 Iraq war. As the Gen McChrystal scandal broke in 2010, Col MacGregor, who attended West Point with McChrystal, and was angered by the US military’s disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts, commented accurately,

The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense

Successful lobbying for that miserably failed utopianism was accomplished by bowdlerizing Islam—indeed mindslaughtering it, a powerful term I will introduce. My discussion will identify the ultimate source of “gravitas” for that bowdlerization process, and key elements of the Islam—not “Islamism,” or “radical Islam”—bowdlerized.

**

Tuesday August 2nd, (2016) Khizr Khan, who achieved notoriety for his condemnation of Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, had the temerity to tell Anderson Cooper “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.” Except when he, Khan, notes it does exist, as in his 1983 essay published in the Houston Journal of International Law, “JURISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF ISLAMIC LAW”, which used the word “Sharia” 8X, including this usage:

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah…”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper did not even challenge Khan’s mendacious, self-contradictory assertion let alone follow-up on Khan’s effusive written praise of two prominent, modern global Sharia promoting ideologues, Said Ramadan, and A.K. Brohi, making plain Khan’s support for so-called “Sharia-based human rights.” The Khan-Cooper exchange illustrates, starkly, the contemporary equivalent of what the great chronicler of Soviet Communist mass murder, Robert Conquest, appositely characterized as MINDSLAUGHTER—a brilliantly evocative term for delusive Western apologetics regarding the ideology of Communism, and the tangible horrors its Communist votaries inflicted. Conquest decried those numerous “Western intellectuals or near intellectuals” of the 1930s through the 1950s whose willful delusions about the Soviet Union, “will be incredible to later students of mental aberration.” He observed,

“One role of the democratic media is, of course, to criticize their own govern­ments, and draw attention to the faults and failings of their own country. But when this results in a transfer of loyalties to a far worse and thoroughly inim­ical culture, or at least to a largely uncritical favoring of such a culture, it becomes a morbid affliction—involving, often enough, the uncritical accep­tance of that culture’s own standards”

His critique of Western media highlights a cultural self-loathing tendency which has persisted and intensified over the intervening decades, and is now manifest in the bowdlerized public discussion of Islam. Tragically, such MINDSLAUGHTERED Islamic discourse extends to an iconic figure in conservative punditry on Islam, while the impact of this doyen’s policymaking advice has been disastrous.

This is no less than a clash of civilizations—that perhaps irrational, but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

Oracle-like font of Islamic wisdom to a large swath of conservative policymaking elites, Bernard Lewis added this caveat:

It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.

Despite his own morally equivocating advice, Lewis himself convinced the Bush 2 administration to pursue what became known, aptly, as “The Lewis Doctrine,” which was not only an irrational, but a catastrophic response to the eminently rational Islamic doctrine of jihad.

Eight days after the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks,with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board.Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi–now [circa 2/2004] a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council—argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future…

Call it the Lewis Doctrine. ..Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, andhis call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends.Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them.Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.

Waldman also demonstrated how Lewis successfully indoctrinated the ultimate Bush II administration leadership to pursue his utopian design: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and most likely, National Security adviser (and later Secretary of State), Condoleezza Rice, as well.

I contend, after careful review, that the miserably failed “Lewis Doctrine” was a sham castle of dangerous, MINDSLAUGHTERED misrepresentations built upon four pillars: dhimmitude denial; Islamic Jew-hatred denial; Sharia obfuscation; and Lewis’s own inexplicable volte face on his gimlet-eyed 1950s assessments of Islamic totalitarianism, and “hurriyya,” the Islamic antithesis of Western freedom.

Regarding the imposition of the dhimma, Islam’s humiliating pact of submission for non-Muslims, per Koran 9:29, and the alleged absence of theological Jew-hatred in Islam, Lewis made these oracular, if vacuous and counterfactual, summary pronouncements, across three decades:

[1974] The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled.

[1984] In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic history. For Muslims it is not part of the birth-pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985), unlike Lewis, was a historian, who specialized in the study of Muslim, non-Muslim relations. Goitein, whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993), was Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew University, and a Lewis colleague while at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his prolific writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim-non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Contra Lewis’s uninformed, whitewashed drivel, here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule, that is, “the dhimma covenant,” circa 1970:

[T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by…the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims.Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities

“The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” my own exhaustive treatise, included voluminous materials Lewis never bothered to compile, let alone analyze with comparable intellectual honesty. My careful analyses demonstrated, irrefragably, that the Koran, its classical and modern exegeses by Islam’s greatest commentators, and the traditions of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community, are rife with virulent, conspiratorial Jew-hating motifs that have been acted upon by Muslims, vis-à-vis Jews, across space and time, from the advent of Islam, till now.

The Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. Presently, Al Azhar Koranic litanies of 20 to 25 verses describing fixed negative traits of the Jews are popular, widely disseminated, and endorsed in the writings and public statements of this Vatican of Sunni Islam’s last two Papal equivalents, the late Grand Imam Tantawi, and current Grand Imam al-Tayeb. Such Jew-hating Koranic “highlights” include: Jews as prophet killers, updated in the hadith to include Muhammad himself—allegedly poisoned to death by a Jewess, in a Jewish conspiracy, while the Shiite hadith further hold the Jews responsible for the deaths of Ali, and his son Hussein—meriting permanent debasement and humiliation (Koran 2:61/3:112); Jews as apes, or apes and pigs (Koran 2:65; 5:60, 7:166)—a Koranic epithet Muhammad personally directed at the Jews according to the sira before the Muslims subdued, and he personally slaughtered, by beheading, all the post-pubescent males, some 700-900, of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza; Jews as inveterate conspirators against Islam (the ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Koran 5:64), who harbor the greatest enmity towards the Muslim creed (Koran 5:82). The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear in the Koran: they are the devil’s minions (4:51/60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and pigs (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

A brilliant, scrupulously documented 72pp/202 ref 1937 essay in French by rabbi, and Islamic scholar Georges Vajda on the hadith (which Lewis never analyzed, but I felt privileged to have fully translated into English for the first time, and included in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), demonstrated that stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic in these traditions. Rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “…sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.” Vajda’s research on the hadith further illustrates how Sunni Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility toward Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Antichrist— and, per other traditions, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered—everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to several canonical hadith, Muhammad himself reportedly declared if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Vajda also emphasizes how the notion of jihad war “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology:

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

Lastly, a profound anti-Jewish, and racist motif, put forth in early Muslim Sunni historiography, as well as the Shiite hadith literature, is most assuredly, contra Lewis, a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and, per Sunnis founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. Sunnis held him responsible—identified as a black (i.e., a racist motif, as well!) Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife. Authoritative Shiite authors claimed this identifiably black Jew was guilty of perverting and warping the message of Caliph Ali’s true (Shiite) followers. Mainstream Shiites thus designated Abdullah Ibn Saba an avatar of extreme, heretical beliefs, for which Caliph Ali purportedly had Ibn Saba burned alive, as described in Shiite hadith.

The entirety of this ugly Islamic doctrine—shared, with minimal variation, by Sunni and Shiite Islam alike—begot chronic, grinding oppression, interspersed with paroxysms of violence, including sporadic, mass murderous pogroms, which affected Jewish communities in Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and even mythically tolerant Muslim Spain, to the west, as well as Turkey, to the north, and Iraq and Iran, to the east. Modern Zionism, culminating in the re-establishment of Israel, governed by Jews fully liberated from 13 centuries of jihad-imposed dhimmitude in their ancestral homeland, has re-invigorated Islam’s annihilationist strains of Jew-hatred.

During a Pew Forum interview April 27, 2006 Bernard Lewis opined rather defensively about Islam’s religio-political “law,” the Sharia:

“[W]hen we talk of Muslim law, I would remind you that we are talking about law. Sharia is a system of law and adjudication, not of lynching and terror. It is a law that lays down rules, rules for evidence, for indictment, for defense and the rest of it, quite a different matter from what has been happening recently.”

But Lewis doesn’t elaborate on those “rules,” or any of the elements of Sharia which make it so noxious! I will. Briefly.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-endedjihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

“The jurists on the whole tend to take a rather mild view of this offense.”

Really? Carl Brockelmann (d.1956), the renowned scholar of Semitic languages, and arguably the foremost Orientalist of his generation, made these candid observations in 1939 about the Sharia’s injunctions pertaining to penal law in general, and so-called “blasphemy and apostasy,” specifically—Islamic Law being “valid” eternally, and all too widely applied in Brockelmann’s era, through the present.

“The penal code of Islam has remained on a rather primitive level…Blasphemy with respect to Allah, the Prophet, and his predecessors is punished by death, as is defection from Islam, if the culprit persists in his disbelief.”

Consider the modern views on blasphemy articulated by the late Ayatollah Montazeri (d. Dec 2009), gushingly championed by fervent Lewis acolytes Michael Ledeen and Reuel Gerecht, and deemed the enlightened spiritual godfather of the so-called Iranian Green Movement. The good Ayatollah adhered rigorously to the traditionalist Shiite dogma on “sabb,” or blasphemy, i.e., instant, lethal punishment of the offender,declaring,

“In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular, Muhammad]…if the witness does not have fear of his or her life it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

“Rising Restrictions on Religion,” a report by the Pew Research Center issued August 9, 2011, examined the issue of “defamation” of religion, tracking countries where various penalties are enforced for apostasy, blasphemy or criticism of religions. “While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical,” the report noted. The Pew report, consistent with Brockelmann’s assessment from 1939, found that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, 21—Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Western Sahara and Yemen—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed,

Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.

As a predictable consequence of this Sharia-based application of apostasy and blasphemy laws by Islamic governments, the Pew report also documented that,

…the share of national governments that showed hostility toward minority religions involving physical violence was much higher in countries where laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion are actively enforced

Bernard Lewis’s April 2006 apologetic on the Sharia was complemented by the stunning claim he made during alecturedelivered July 16, 2006 about the transferability of Western democracy to despotic Muslim societies, such as Iraq. He concluded with the statement, “Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us,” which was published as, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” and disseminated widely. Yet Lewis never elucidated the yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom—hurriyya in Arabic. This omission was striking given his contribution to the official Encyclopedia of Islamentry on hurriyya. Lewis egregiously omitted not only his earlier writings on hurriyya but what he had alsotermed the “authoritarian or even totalitarian” essence of Islamic societies.

Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it “perfect slavery,” and following Islamic law slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya. Bernard Lewis, in his Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. Lewis maintained,

…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government-to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West.

Lewis also makes the important pointthat Western colonialism transiently ameliorated this chronic situation:

During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issue. Though often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.

And Lewis concludes his entry by observing that Islamic societies forsook even their inchoate democratic experiments,

In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.

Lewis, viewed the immediate post-World War II era of democratic experimentation by Muslim societies as an objective failure, rooted in Islamic totalitarianism, which he compared directly to Communist totalitarianism, in his 1954 essay, “Communism and Islam,” noting their “uncomfortable resemblances” with some apprehension. Lewis characterized the “political history of Islam,” as “one of almost unrelieved autocracy.” He added,

“[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind…in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law”

“Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers.The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which-the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.”

Consistent with Bernard Lewis’s admonition, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” the US military, at an enormous cost of blood and treasure, liberated Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic regimes. However, as facilitated by the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions the US military occupation helped midwife—which formally negated freedom of conscience, and promoted the persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities—“they,” i.e., the Muslim denizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have chosen to reject the opportunity for Western freedom “we” provided them, and transmogrified it into “hurriyya.” With sad predictability, Lewis, in an April 2, 2011 Wall Street Journal interview, managed to reject his own 1950s characterizations of Islam as authoritarian, even totalitarian, while burbling his subsequent oft repeated pieties about the putative tolerant, anti-authoritarian “tradition” of Islam, to cast a hopeful light on the Arab Spring:

The whole Islamic tradition is very clearly against autocratic and irresponsible rule.. We have a much better chance of establishing…some sort of open, tolerant society, if it’s done within their systems, according to their traditions.

Finally, in May, 2012, George W. Bush appeared to have learned nothing from the Iraq democratization debacle, and how it repudiated his blind adherence to the “Lewis Doctrine.” Mr. Bush hectored critics who did not share his ebullient cognitive dissonance about the then unfolding so-called Arab Spring phenomenon, declaring

Some look at the risks inherent in democratic change, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know, in the name of stability.

Bush II even made the outrageous claim that the, de facto Springtime for Sharia in Araby was tantamount to “the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet Communism.”

Far more important than mere hypocrisy—a ubiquitous human trait—is the catastrophic legacy of his own Islamic negationism Bernard Lewis has bequeathed to Western policymaking elites.

FYI — All yahoo email domains have been banned for spam abuse. Please use your own ISP to send email or get a gmail account. If you don’t your email will not be delivered or forwarded. Thanks, webmaster.